Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs ReversingLabs comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Check Point CloudGuard WAF
Ranking in Application Security Tools
9th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Web Application Firewall (WAF) (11th)
ReversingLabs
Ranking in Application Security Tools
24th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (17th), Container Security (29th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (12th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (14th), Software Supply Chain Security (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Application Security Tools category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard WAF is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ReversingLabs is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Application Security Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Dialungana Malungo - PeerSpot reviewer
Protects our web applications and APIs and has a very low false positive rate
CloudGuard WAF is a very straightforward solution. I do not have to worry about signatures. Most of the solutions that are out there are mainly based on signatures, and I have to do a lot of maintenance to get the signature updates, and sometimes, due to a lack of resources, I am not able to do so. With CloudGuard WAF, I have peace of mind, because most of the features are AI-based, and there is not much configuration that needs to be done on my side. Once set, I only go to CloudGuard WAF to check. I do not have to worry about signatures or updates. Everything is done perfectly, and I have a sense of peace because I know our applications are safe. It is very important for us that CloudGuard WAF protects our applications against threats without relying on signatures. That is definitely one of the key features I need.
Jesse Harris - PeerSpot reviewer
Comes with a large sample size and helps t stay on top of emerging threats
The solution helps to stay on top of emerging threats with easy integration with other products.  ReversingLabs has a large sample size.  The solution needs to improve integrations.  I have been using the solution for four to five years.  ReversingLabs' stability is excellent.  I rate the…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Since we've had CloudGuard, we've never had these issues happen again."
"One of the best features of CloudGuard WAF is its user-friendly GUI dashboard."
"On the endpoint side, the most valuable feature is undoubtedly the cloud-based management capability, along with the ransomware protection, despite not encountering any instances so far."
"Overall, it's a good solution, and it fulfills all our core purposes, providing complete visibility and security."
"Whenever there was a new CVE, Check Point CloudGuard WAF used to block them."
"We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results."
"The most valuable features are its ease of use and multiple functionalities."
"It offers good functionality of the application that is currently running."
"As far as static analysis information is concerned, we use most of the information that is available in order to determine whether or not we might be dealing with a malware variant. This includes information that is related to Java rules. This is also related to malware families indicated or specific malicious software variants that are labeled by name."
"It offers reports on a great many more file types than the other analysis solutions we have. It can give us a more in-depth analysis and better reporting on a larger number of file types. It also gives us a more comprehensive score on a number of things as well, and that's why we're using it as a front-end filter. It gives us more information... It's valuable because of its depth of information, as well as the breadth it gives us. There aren't a lot of tools that cover all of the different file types."
"As far as the malware repository is concerned, it's extensive. It's a good source for finding samples, where we are unable to find them on other channels or by leveraging other sources."
"The automated static analysis of malware is the most valuable feature. Its detection abilities are very good. It hits all of the different platforms out there, platforms that see the items in the wild."
"ReversingLabs has a large sample size."
 

Cons

"Improving the process for handling licensing renewals would be a welcome enhancement."
"A feature we'd like to see in the future is something that could protect against other attack vectors, with a focus on application protection."
"The coding configurations can be simplified to save time for IT teams and developers."
"The learning curve was a challenge due to initially incorrect configurations. It took approximately a month and a half to understand how the solution works because of inadequate documentation."
"The web user interface needs some improvement, even though the functionality is good."
"There are improvements that can be made regarding pricing since it has a high initial cost."
"The UI interface needs improvement because there are a number of bugs. Integration with the SIEM platform is currently one of the key challenges that need to be addressed."
"They should improve in the delivery of more detailed reports with more information."
"We would really like further integration with our threat intelligence platform, which is called ThreatConnect. We would also really like further integrations with an endpoint protection product we use called Tanium. The reason I mentioned both of these is that ReversingLabs claims to have extensive integrations with both of them, but they did not work for us."
"The product support could be better at times. Sometimes, the resources that they provide could be of higher quality."
"I would like to see if we could do a little bit more of bulk uploading of hash sets. Right now, I can only do them individually."
"The solution needs to improve integrations."
"While the company is very helpful, it would be very much appreciated to have extensive proof of concept scripts for the different APIs available, though not for all the APIs that we have purchased. Respective scripts are available, but those scripts which are available are typically not of very high quality."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The base solution costs approximately 30,000 euros, with an additional 2,000 euros per year for licenses and support."
"The sales team or account managers from Check Point are top-notch. As I am using other products as well, my pricing was competitive compared to others."
"Check Point CloudGuard Application Security's pricing is not friendly."
"I work for an Indian banking client. In India, companies are on a budget. The company liked Check Point very much, but it was a little bit costly compared to FortiWeb. However, it had more features compared to FortiWeb."
"It is not cheap, but it is worth it."
"Considering all the benefits we've observed, we find the price to be satisfactory."
"The pricing is competitive compared to other solutions on the market. So, the licensing cost is average."
"Check Point CloudGuard WAF is expensive compared to Azure WAF."
"Currently, the license number of lookups that we purchased has not been reached yet, because the integration has only recently been completed. However, our usage is expected and planned to increase over the next couple of months."
"We have a yearly contract based on the number of queries and malicious programs which can be processed."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Application Security Tools solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CloudGuard for Application Security?
We have not had any incidents. We could realize its benefits immediately. We watched and monitored the traffic, and it was amazing to see the results.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage.
What needs improvement with CloudGuard for Application Security?
The pricing can be a bit complex to understand initially. It can be challenging to estimate costs, especially when scaling our usage. Also, while the documentation is comprehensive, it can be diffi...
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard Application Security, CloudGuard AppSec
ReversingLabs Titanium, ReversingLabs secure.software
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Orange España, Paschoalotto
Financial services, healthcare, government, manufacturing, oil & gas, telecommunications, information technology
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard WAF vs. ReversingLabs and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.